ORDER

1. This is an application for leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council from an order of a Bench of this Court striking off the name of the applicant who is a Pleader from the roll of the Pleaders on the ground of misconduct. Although the Calcutta and Patna High Courts have taken a different view, it his been the practice in this Court to treat such orders as falling under Section, 109(e), Civil Procedure Code. The case in Asharfi Lai v. Judges of Allahabad High Court (1930) A.L.J. 134 : 122 Ind. Cas. 4 : AIR 1930 P.C. 60 : 31 Cri. L.J. 337 : 31 L.W. 298 : 34 C.W.N. 432 : 32 Bom. L.R. 556 : 7 O.W.n. 264 : 51 C ri .L.J. 417 : (1930) Cr. Cas. 205 : 58 M.L.J. 483 : (1930) P.C. 88 was a case of a Pleader who had been suspended from practice, for four years. Leave to appeal to His Majesty in Council was allowed and No. Objection was taken before their Lordships that the order allowing such leave was illegal. Indeed their Lordships actually accepted the appeal and set aside the order of (he High Court in that case. Again in AIR 1930 144 (Privy Council) a Vakil had been struck off the roll of Vakils. Their Lordships accepted the appeal and set aside the order of the High Court. The b